T Nation

The Way of Men

I don’t want to hock this guy’s book but it is a good read and I think one day will belong on a shelf next to the “Art of War” or “The 48 Laws of Power”.

I was a bit skeptical, given he’s from the “manosphere” populated by mostly retards writing about game and picking up chicks at or about the third grade level.

It’s got enough quotes and research in there from various big name writers that make it appears well researched, with enough of philosophical-like glue to hold it all together, without being boring.

He starts by defining the 4 historical male virtues: strength, courage, mastery, and honour and how they functioned in small groups of males struggling for survival well before civilization.

Some stuff on the difference between being a good man versus being good at being a man. How we live in a “bonobo masturbation society”. Some small stuff on homosexuality and homophobia.

The founding of Rome and how small gangs turn into civilizations.

He gets into some monomyth stuff and the epic of Gilgamesh, and the eternal drive for men to be men in even civilizations with a life much harder than most if not all of us have currently.

Some stuff on our current culture and the agendas of people who would like to exterminate these qualities.

Giving the topic he’s writing on, its relatively sane and an entertaining read.

Theres one shitty section in there where he dicusses some emails he exchanged with the guy from the art of manliness, which should be scrubbed in an edit. Otherwise I’d give it a pretty good rating. I’m pleasantly surprised with how this one turned out.

Sounds like something I’d read

You can read a sample chapter here: http://goodmenproject.com/the-good-life/freedom/on-being-a-good-man-2/

The author also participates in the comments below the article, and that was interesting at times.

[quote]NAUn wrote:
You can read a sample chapter here: http://goodmenproject.com/the-good-life/freedom/on-being-a-good-man-2/

The author also participates in the comments below the article, and that was interesting at times. [/quote]

Based on that passage I will be buying and reading the entire book. Thanks for posting.

[quote]theuofh wrote:

I was a bit skeptical, given he’s from the “manosphere” populated by mostly retards writing about game and picking up chicks at or about the third grade level.

[/quote]

Yeah, well, to get to the top you need a broad base.

Guys like him are unthinkable without teens and twen learning how to get laid.

As soon as they know how, they immediate pressure is gone and they turn to guys like him.

[quote]orion wrote:

Guys like him are unthinkable without teens and twen learning how to get laid.

[/quote]

In a bonobo masturbation society it pretty much ass up all the time.

[quote]theuofh wrote:
I don’t want to hock this guy’s book but it is a good read and I think one day will belong on a shelf next to the “Art of War” or “The 48 Laws of Power”.

I was a bit skeptical, given he’s from the “manosphere” populated by mostly retards writing about game and picking up chicks at or about the third grade level.

It’s got enough quotes and research in there from various big name writers that make it appears well researched, with enough of philosophical-like glue to hold it all together, without being boring.

He starts by defining the 4 historical male virtues: strength, courage, mastery, and honour and how they functioned in small groups of males struggling for survival well before civilization.

Some stuff on the difference between being a good man versus being good at being a man. How we live in a “bonobo masturbation society”. Some small stuff on homosexuality and homophobia.

The founding of Rome and how small gangs turn into civilizations.

He gets into some monomyth stuff and the epic of Gilgamesh, and the eternal drive for men to be men in even civilizations with a life much harder than most if not all of us have currently.

Some stuff on our current culture and the agendas of people who would like to exterminate these qualities.

Giving the topic he’s writing on, its relatively sane and an entertaining read.

Theres one shitty section in there where he dicusses some emails he exchanged with the guy from the art of manliness, which should be scrubbed in an edit. Otherwise I’d give it a pretty good rating. I’m pleasantly surprised with how this one turned out.

[/quote]

I read it this afternoon, it turned out to be a fairly short read.

So what are your thoughts on the book?

I think his ideas about what constitute the “Way of Men” are compelling. They make sense taken at face value, and he does a good job motivating how the institution of civilization, especially in our current form, inhibits the expression of these values.

I’m unnerved by his conclusion about the future of manliness. Can the Way of Men only flourish in primitive independent gang-like hordes? I think he sounds jaded and cynical in saying that the future of Men is hopeless without a return to these basic societies. Is there really no way for men to take their manliness back? Are we really just “playing man” unless faced with an immediate survival threat?

I heard this guy hates gays.

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
I heard this guy hates gays.[/quote]

I heard he is gay.

Its a moot point and his brief discussion on homosexuality is that is it directly opposite to most of the primitive of masculine virtues that deal with winning resources and ultimately surviving by competing against and defeating other small groups of males.

Homosexuality, at least for the bottoms, is bending over and taking it from another guy. This subservience is what isn’t what is hard wired in the male brain.

Outside of the sex act itself, what he does not have high regard for is flamboyants and people who do not act like typical men. He calls it an essentially dishonorable act, in the sense that the individual does not have enough respect for his own and his groups reputation for possessing strength, courage, and mastery and deliberately flaunting it.

Just placed the order on Amazon for this and art of war. Time to get reading. I always have a hard time finding interesting things to read. Thanks for the suggestion.

[quote]NAUn wrote:

So what are your thoughts on the book?

I think his ideas about what constitute the “Way of Men” are compelling. They make sense taken at face value, and he does a good job motivating how the institution of civilization, especially in our current form, inhibits the expression of these values.

I’m unnerved by his conclusion about the future of manliness. Can the Way of Men only flourish in primitive independent gang-like hordes? I think he sounds jaded and cynical in saying that the future of Men is hopeless without a return to these basic societies. Is there really no way for men to take their manliness back? Are we really just “playing man” unless faced with an immediate survival threat? [/quote]

I had a reply, but I don’t feel like typing it out. Maybe if I have a couple drinks.

I will say the one quote “It’s tragic to think that heroic man’s great destiny is to become economic man, that men will be reduced to craven creatures who crawl across the globe competing for money, who spend their nights reaming up new ways to swindle each other. That’s the path we’re on now” really struck me.

Most of these traditionally virtues, are in a way violent and psychopathic. People who have those qualities some intelligence, and no impulse control issues, usually rise to the top food chain and become members of the ruling class. Others with them, that are dumb and impulsive, end up in prison.

“A nice guy who works 9 to 5 in a cubicle farm and spends his free time doing whatever his wife tells him to do” really isn’t in a position to push back and compete against these types of people in today’s world.

Being a better man in the traditional sense, having the courage to push back, having skills to be an above average hunter or asset, and desire to protect ones reputation for having so, gives one something to compete with and challenge the current alpha dogs, who currently are hurting everyone else to advance their own interests.

I recall TC would often write on his view of what defines “manliness”.

This site lost something essential when it dropped the weekly Atomic Dog articles.

Why is there a need to categorize and label what a man is or what he is suppose to be? If someone is true to themselves, it does not matter what path of actions they choose to follow.

I am somewhat confused theuofh by your stance on this matter. You have a sentient being in full lotus practicing the path of enlightenment in your avatar, yet you attach yourself with ideas and predispositions about what it is to be a man. Quite the opposite of letting go worldly attachments.

[quote]Hellfrost wrote:
Why is there a need to categorize and label what a man is or what he is suppose to be? If someone is true to themselves, it does not matter what path of actions they choose to follow.

I am somewhat confused theuofh by your stance on this matter. You have a sentient being in full lotus practicing the path of enlightenment in your avatar, yet you attach yourself with ideas and predispositions about what it is to be a man. Quite the opposite of letting go worldly attachments. [/quote]

I have no stance in this matter and I’m not buddha. It found it an interesting book that I thought would resonate well with members of this forum.

Non-attachment is not letting go. No use burying one’s head in the sand. In fact, discussing and reading things like this helps to change or adapt strongly held personal ideas or values. When they change, an opportunity presents itself to realize their impermanence.

You also seem to have a strong emotional aversion to the topic. Care to discuss?

[quote]theuofh wrote:

I had a reply, but I don’t feel like typing it out. Maybe if I have a couple drinks.

I will say the one quote “It’s tragic to think that heroic man’s great destiny is to become economic man, that men will be reduced to craven creatures who crawl across the globe competing for money, who spend their nights reaming up new ways to swindle each other. That’s the path we’re on now” really struck me.

Most of these traditionally virtues, are in a way violent and psychopathic. People who have those qualities some intelligence, and no impulse control issues, usually rise to the top food chain and become members of the ruling class. Others with them, that are dumb and impulsive, end up in prison.

“A nice guy who works 9 to 5 in a cubicle farm and spends his free time doing whatever his wife tells him to do” really isn’t in a position to push back and compete against these types of people in today’s world.

Being a better man in the traditional sense, having the courage to push back, having skills to be an above average hunter or asset, and desire to protect ones reputation for having so, gives one something to compete with and challenge the current alpha dogs, who currently are hurting everyone else to advance their own interests.
[/quote]
I believe what he is saying reeks quite strongly of insecurity and machismo. Men today don’t feel like men because they can’t punch the bully who is taunting them? If a man was realy confident about his place in the social hierarchy, I think he would let that kind of petty BS go. If a man is insecure with his manliness, then he is going to feel the need to prove it somehow. Sure, a man who is confident in his manhood will sometimes want to test it for sport, but he wouldn’t need to go for such easy targets. How anxious and unconfident must Jack Donovan be to propose that men won’t be able to feel like men unless we bring down society and establish small, violent gangs. And to blame his lack of manly feelings on women? Classic!

Is society forcing men to become less manly? I don’t really know about that. Life does not REQUIRE these manly values that he describes, but there are definitely ways people can exercise these needs if they really have them. I think the fact that men have such an easy way out just highlights how traditionally unmanly most men really are, and some of them aren’t comfortable with it and can’t accept it. This book is an example of the kind of mental gymnastics someone will go through in order to place the blame on someone else. I think a shining example of this is his dismissal of emergency services, military, and public service as not being proper “manly” outlets because they serve corporate interests etc. He sounds like a jaded teenager who is unhappy that he can’t find his place in the world, and thinks it’s because he’s TOO MANLY.

My main take away from the book is that primitive, small group, hunter gatherer societies had these characteristics. I’m reading another one on the Comanche, the last of the nomadic hunter-gatherer Indian tribes, who raided every one from agricultural indian tribes to settlers, and managed to stop the spanish move north dead in tracks. They gang raped the women of the tribes they conquered and tortured the men. They expected the same treatment from their enemies. Its just how these cultures were, from the vikings to the mongols.

Any commentary on what this means for modern man and society is bound to lead to crazy talk.

[quote]theuofh wrote:

Any commentary on what this means for modern man and society is bound to lead to crazy talk.

[/quote]

What about:

Women co-evolved with this killers which is why they have a visceral reaction to the not so nice guys?

Crazy talk?

He never once mentioned the role the ability to get laid in the book plays in this or how women may have coevolved along with men.

He did say modern day anarachists are pussies for listening to noam chomsky, when they use to wield some real power and assassinate world leaders regularly.

[quote]theuofh wrote:
He never once mentioned the role the ability to get laid in the book plays in this or how women may have coevolved along with men.

He did say modern day anarachists are pussies for listening to noam chomsky, when they use to wield some real power and assassinate world leaders regularly. [/quote]

Well he is right, but the point is that you can draw conclusions from this, in fact you must if you want to take our true nature into account.

Men are not fluffy teddy bears but born killers and a fruitful approach does not try to suppress that but to channel it.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:
He never once mentioned the role the ability to get laid in the book plays in this or how women may have coevolved along with men.

He did say modern day anarachists are pussies for listening to noam chomsky, when they use to wield some real power and assassinate world leaders regularly. [/quote]

Well he is right, but the point is that you can draw conclusions from this, in fact you must if you want to take our true nature into account.

Men are not fluffy teddy bears but born killers and a fruitful approach does not try to suppress that but to channel it. [/quote]

He does talk about getting laid. That’s where the “Bonobo Masturbation Society” stuff comes in. Basically, he argues that in today’s society the only expression of masculinity that is left is hooking up with lot of women, which, although men have always wanted sex, was never really one of the four original manly values. Really, it is the free sex movement and advent of birth control that has allowed women to open this up to society. He suggests that properly masculinized men would not be so concerned with hooking up or gaming women because they would have other outlets for their masculinity and sex would assume its normal role. Really, he says, you are playing into the exact role that women want you to when you are working so hard to be exactly what they want to have commitment-free sex with, just like the bonobo males who try to please their females in order to get their turn. And you might think that you are winning because you are being what they REALLY want, not what they say they want, so YOU are in control. But if you have deformed your masculinity into being their bodily vibrators (and working ever so hard to be a good one, at that), then really they have succeeded in diverting your attention away from your natural male impulses, of violence and male-oriented social interactions. That’s a win for the feminist movement.

In other words, by coming in here and immediately trying to apply it to getting women, you have already lost.